MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF.

	BOARD DATE:  12 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030428

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his records be corrected to show eligibility for participation in the Student Loan Repayment Program.  He submits no documentation in support of his application.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his original enlistment in the ARNG in July 1991 showed that he was eligible for and requested participation in the SLRP.  He attended school after he enlisted but was denied payment on his loans because of a mistake in his enlistment contract.  He elected to stay in the ARNG without SLRP.  He still believes that he should be entitled to the benefits from the SLRP.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's available military records show:

He enlisted in the ARNG at 34 years of age as a medical specialist on 29 July 1991 with prior active duty and Reserve Component service.  In an addendum to his enlistment contract (DA Form 5261-4) it shows that he was enlisting with participation in the SLRP and the military skill of 91A, medical specialist.  The applicant and the recruiter signed the form.  The DD Form 1966/2 (enlistment) also shows that he was enlisting for tuition loan repayment.  His available record also contains a reenlistment contract, dated 29 June 1993 where the applicant extended his enlistment for 3 years for participation in the State Tuition Grant program.  His qualification record shows that he was reassigned as a supply specialist for almost 2 years effective 1 September 1993.

In an undated letter sometime in 1998, purportedly to the State Adjutant General, the applicant sought assistance in receiving the SLRP as originally provided in his contract.  He also acknowledged that he waived that portion of his contract and agreed to remain in the ARNG.  Attached to that letter is a 22 December 1992 memorandum wherein the applicant elected to remain in the ARNG without benefit of the SLRP portion of his enlistment contract.  A 29 November 1994 memorandum from the state military personnel office to the applicant’s unit confirms that he is not eligible for the SLRP and that he elected to remain in the ARNG without SLRP eligibility.

A 1 October 1999 memorandum to the applicant from the State Adjutant General says that his inquiry confirmed the error in his enlistment contract and the options made available to him.  It went on to say that since he had voluntarily elected to remain a member of the ARNG without benefit of the SLRP he was offered a State Tuition Grant and the Montgomery GI Bill which he had participated in.  Further financial counseling was offered.  There is no information in the available record to show the amount of financial benefits received by the applicant to date, any amount that he may remain eligible for, or the amount of his original qualifying loans prior to 22 December 1992, the date he elected to waive the SLRP.

AR 135-7 provides the policy for Reserve Component enlistment incentive programs.  It provides that the SLRP incentive provides for the repayment of a designated portion of a student loan under part B of the Higher Education Act.  It requires the soldier to enlist in an approved unit and/or military skill approved by the Department for the SLRP.  It also requires the soldier to remain with the unit and in the same military skill that approval was based on.  No payments are disbursed until after successful completion of skill training and 1 year in the unit after securing the student loan.

AR 135-178 provides the policy for separation of enlisted personnel.  It provides for the separation of a soldier when a defective enlistment exists and the soldier requests discharge instead of other authorized corrective action.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  Notwithstanding that the applicant may have been induced in his original enlistment in the ARNG by the availability of the SLRP, appropriate corrective action was taken as soon as the error was discovered.  The applicant voluntarily elected to remain a member of the ARNG and accepted a State Tuition Grant and participation in the Montgomery GI Bill.

2.  While it is unfortunate that the applicant was erroneously offered participation in the SLRP, the fact remains that his unit and military skill were not approved for SLRP participation at the time of enlistment.  To give the applicant this relief would be giving him a benefit that was not given to other reservists who were also not eligible at the time.  Additionally, the applicant provides no information on the date or amount of qualifying loans that were executed prior to discovery of the defective enlistment.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RH__  ___JS__  __BE___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030428	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000412	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.